Author: admin

Since the start of the pandemic, various consumer services such as dining have moved outdoors to reduce the risk of virus spread.

Services that have moved outdoors to avoid closure include everything from exercise classes to movie screenings, but dining is the most economically important since it accounts for about 5% of total consumption and 3% of GDP. In New York City, for example, the share of restaurants approved for outdoor dining in public areas has risen from less than 10% to more than 40% in just a few months, according to Goldman.

However, as the weather gets colder, consumer activity now conducted outdoors will decline much more sharply than seasonal adjustment factors expect, creating a risk of a sharp and adverse impact to consumer spending.

To assess this impact, Goldman forecasts the impact of the coming winter on restaurant spending and GDP.  Cutting to the chase, Goldman estimates that winter weather will reduce restaurant spending by 3–4% and consumption by 0.2pp during the coldest months. This translates to a 0.3% hit to real GDP growth in 2020 Q4, and a 0.1% hit in 2021 Q1, followed by a rebound as temperatures rise in 2021 Q2.

As part of its analysis, Goldman compared daily temperatures across 31 large U.S. cities with data on restaurant reservations from OpenTable. Because the reservation data are expressed as growth rates since the same day a year ago, they are already adjusted for normal, pre-pandemic seasonal trends. The results, shown in the chart brlow, find that cold weather significantly decreases restaurant bookings.

The relationship is highly statistically significant and stronger at lower temperatures. Compared to temperatures above 70°F, a daily average temperature below 40°F is associated with a 17.6% decline in seasonally-adjusted restaurant reservations. To Goldman, this implies that the negative effect of cold weather on restaurant reservations is substantially stronger now under pandemic conditions than it was in the past, and suggests that the cutoff point when there is a sharp drop in outdoor dining is when the outside temperature drops below 45°F.

Of course, the above is intuitive: the colder it gets, the less people go out. So what about the impact of the coming winter on actual restaurant spending, and by implication US GDP? Here Goldman finds that a 1% decrease in restaurant reservations translates to a 0.55% decrease in year-over-year restaurant spending at the national level. Restaurant spending does not decline one-for-one with reservations, likely because consumers can substitute from dining at full-service restaurants to dining at limited-service restaurants, takeout, or delivery.

Putting it together, the implied hit from colder temperatures to seasonally-adjusted restaurant spending is shown in the chart below. Goldman estimates that winter weather will reduce restaurant spending by 3–4% and consumption by 0.2pp during the coldest months. This translates to a 0.3% hit to real GDP growth in Q4 and a 0.1% hit in 2021 Q1, followed by a rebound as temperatures rise in 2021 Q2.

It goes without saying that the negative effect of cold temperatures on restaurant spending may become even more extreme at temperatures well below 40°F, or if you throw in a blizzard or two. The economic implication is also self-explanatory: a very cold winter could crush winter GDP.

To the upside, restaurants might find ways to adapt outdoor dining to winter weather by installing tents or heaters, moderating the negative effect of cold weather on restaurant spending. To this point, Goldman notes that Washington, D.C., recently offered $6,000 grants to help restaurants “winterize” their outdoor dining.  In addition, further relaxation of restrictions on indoor dining or increased substitution toward takeout and delivery might soften the negative effects of cold weather on restaurant spending. Alternatively, a good hedge would be to buy stock in companies that make outdoor patio heaters: they are about to see a record surge in demand.

Via The Mises Institute,

The coronavirus crisis has served as a powerful tool in highlighting many of the faults that previously existed in society. It exposed which politicians have an inherent need to control and which ones are guided by humility. It reminded us of the political power that lies in fear, and how crucial it is to be skeptical of prevailing narratives. It emphasized the different economic realities for those who live paycheck to paycheck and those who benefit from economic financialization.

It should also make perfectly clear the danger of handing over healthcare to the state.

Already we have seen agents of the state, at various levels, seek to leverage a viral medical crisis to expand their power. Governors and local officials have sought to use vague “emergency” powers to lock down businesses and to create criminal penalties, and have then attacked any attempts by judiciaries to rein in their actions. Judges have sought to leverage the power they hold in deciding child custody to force citizens to make medical decisions they disagree with. Anointed government experts, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, in spite of his own inconsistencies, have been held up as the final word on science, at the expense of the voices of other credible scientists.

Whether by design or by the instinctual reaction, we have seen a concerted effort of government authorities—amplified by a corporate press with a particularly vivid political agenda, and supported by the credentials of an academic landscape that suffers from ideological capture—to weaponize a centralized scientific narrative for the purpose of achieving certain policy ends. It is appropriate that some have dubbed this union “the Cathedral,” as we have seen the divine right of kings renewed in the divine right of approved scientists.

None of this should be a surprise.

Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and others have long warned of the dangers of “scientism.” As Jonathan Newman has noted on this site, we’ve seen it play out increasingly in American pop culture with the fetishizing of figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye.

Now, luckily, the current healthcare system has limits on the degree to which we, as individuals, must submit to the power of the “scientific consensus.” How long, however, will that doctor-patient relationship remain sacred?

Already we have seen various states actively ban the prescription of hydroxychloroquine following a mass media freak-out over a story involving a man dying after digesting fish cleaner. Conflating medically prescribed hydroxychloroquine with a toxic cleaner was never grounded in either science or reason; it was a move driven purely by a partisan reaction to President Trump’s endorsement of the drug, and the willingness of the media to spin a story that was critical of his judgment. Many of these states have been forced to reverse their decision, as some (though not all) scientific studies indicate that it may be an effective treatment.

Now imagine if America’s healthcare system were turned into a single-payer model, such as the Medicare for All reform that has been championed by some of the most popular members of the Democratic Party. Beyond questions of access, wait times, and supply rationing, which we see in places like Canada and the UK, does anyone expect a nationalized healthcare system to not end up limiting the treatment options available between doctors and patients?

What about the medical services available to those who are not in full compliance with health-related government edicts? In a single-payer healthcare system is it not plausible that an unmasked social media photo could be used as evidence for why someone doesn’t deserve the same level care as someone who has followed all the rules?

Does such a new level of medical control even require a true single-payer system?

The labyrinth of government regulation and red tape within the healthcare industry, exacerbated in the post-Obamacare world, has resulted in significant consolidation of the health insurance industry. Joe Biden’s moderate healthcare reform, which calls for the re-creation of a public rival to private insurance, would only result in further consolidation. As we’ve seen in financial services, Big Tech, and other industries, a consolidated industry is ripe to be abused by those convinced of the righteousness of their own ideological crusades.

The answer to the dangers of corporate consolidation is radical decentralization. We’ve seen this play out in the medical industry with the rise of physicians opting out of the dominant insurance-based service model and offering direct primary care. As more states have begun to lean into this trend, it will be interesting to see how long the federal government is willing to avoid pushing back—particularly if we see the return of a Democratic executive.

We should take seriously those with blue checkmarks on Twitter who shamelessly share in public dreams of covid-inspired “truth commissions,” and who gleefully wish for the suffering of anyone who questions the science behind lockdowns and mask mandates. If the state’s role in healthcare expands, it is precisely people with these sorts of views who are likely to fill the ranks of its bureaucracy.

Birds of a feather, flock…well, you know the expression.

The expression looks like it could certainly be the case when it comes to hiring attorneys, as well. Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime associate and accomplice to Jeffrey Epstein and suspected child sex trafficker, has hired the same “New York Super Lawyer” that once represented one of Osama bin Laden’s henchmen, according to RT.

Maxwell has hired Bobbi Sternheim to join her legal defense team ahead of her upcoming trial in 2021. Sternheim specializes in ‘litigating difficult and complex cases,’ according to her website. According to the report, she has represented clients involved in all types of crime, including “racketeering conspiracies, international terrorism, capital murder, and inter-state transport of pornographic media.”

She represented Khaled al-Fawwaz, who was accused of playing a role in the twin bombings of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 where 224 people were killed. Her client was sentenced to life in prison. We can only hope that “Ghis” is as lucky. 

Sternheim also defended Minh Quang Pham, who was ordered by al Qaeda to carry out a suicide bombing at London’s Heathrow Airport. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison in 2016.

Interestingly enough, and as was pointed out on a recent podcast, Maxwell isn’t facing any crimes pertaining to engaging in sex acts herself with the minors. Independent reporter Whitney Webb of The Last American Vagabond, who is currently writing a book on the Epstein scandal, spent an hour explaining the details of Maxwell’s arrest back in July:

Instead, Maxwell is going to be fighting charges of “Conspiracy and seduction of minors to travel to and participate in illegal sexual acts; Seduction of a minor to travel to and participate in illegal sexual acts; Conspiracy to transport minors to participate in criminal sexual acts; Transport of a minor to participate in criminal sexual acts; and two counts of perjury.”

Maxwell awaits a 2021 trial.

 

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

US Intelligence officials were quick to speak through their stenographers in the media to downplay the contents of a memo released last week by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe about the origins of Russiagate. The memo made an explosive claim: Russian intelligence assessed that Hillary Clinton approved a campaign in July 2016 to link Donald Trump to Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC to distract from Clinton’s email scandal.

After a week of sanctimonious statements from former intelligence officials, who according to Politico, were “aghast” with Ratcliffe’s decision to declassify the intelligence, the DNI declassified documents that showed the claim was not as “unverified” as these spooks would like the American people to believe.

In the memo released last week, Ratcliffe said handwritten notes from former CIA director John Brennan indicated that Brennan briefed President Obama on Clinton’s alleged plot. On Tuesday, Ratcliffe declassified those notes.

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan’s notes read. “CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,”

Speaking with CNN after his notes were released, Brennan confirmed that he briefed Obama on this allegation.

“These were my notes from the 2016 period when I briefed President Obama and the rest of the national security council team about what the Russians were up to and I was giving examples of the type of access that the US intelligence community had to Russian information and what the Russians were talking about and alleging,” Brennan said.

Before Brennan’s admission, the former CIA chief denounced Ratcliffe’s move to declassify the information and said the DNI is “is anything but an intelligence professional” and said Ratcliffe’s “selective declassification of information” was done to help President Trump. While Ratcliffe’s move was undoubtedly politically motivated, Brennan is in no position to judge anybody’s professionalism.

Brennan, who landed a job as an analyst for NBC in 2018, has used his prominence as a former CIA chief to make wild accusations about President Trump and Russia. After the 2018 Helsinki Summit, Brennan took to Twitter to accuse Trump of “treason” and said the president is “wholly in the pocket of Putin.” In August 2018, Brennan penned an Op-Ed for The New York Times that said President Trump’s claims of no collusion are “hogwash.” After Robert Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, Brennan changed his tune and said he must have received “bad information.” Whoops.

Ratcliffe also released a declassified CIA memo from September 2016 addressed to former FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump campaign officials’ alleged ties to Russia.

“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date,” the memo reads. “An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Last week, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asked Comey if he remembered receiving the memo, but the former FBI chief conveniently forgot. “That doesn’t ring any bells with me,” Comey said.

The inspector general report on the FBI’s spying of the Trump campaign revealed multiple instances of the agency withholding and misrepresenting information to the FISA court to obtain surveillance warrants. For example, the FBI withheld the fact that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page had been working with the CIA in his dealings with Russia. The September 2016 memo alleging Clinton ordered to stir up a scandal linking Trump to Russia is just another example in a long list of information the FBI ignored to fit its narrative.

As Graham pointed out during the hearing and the great Russiagate debunker Aaron Maté pointed out on Twitter, the fact that the Clinton campaign tried to hype Trump-Russia ties is nothing new. It is well known that the campaign hired Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele to compile a now-discredited dossier about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia that relied heavily on internet rumors.

Ratcliffe’s memo says Clinton allegedly approved a campaign to stir up a scandal to distract from her emails on July 26^th, 2016. A look at the timeline of events suggests Russian intelligence based this analysis, at least partly, on open-source information.

WikiLeaks began publishing emails from the Democratic National Committee on July 22^nd, shortly before the Democratic National Convention. The emails were damning and revealed the DNC had a preference for Clinton and actively worked against the Bernie Sanders campaign.

The blog Moon of Alabama found Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook appeared on CNN on July 24^th and made what was possibly the first allegation that Russia had “hacked” the DNC in support of Trump. Mook made the claim with no evidence, citing unnamed “experts.”

New on MoA:
DNI Letter Supports Allegation That Hillary Clinton Created ‘Russiagate’
https://t.co/1IWhl9aKz9 pic.twitter.com/lbyTPdM4nZ

— Moon of Alabama (@MoonofA) September 30, 2020

“What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually of helping Donald Trump,” Mook said.

As Bernhard put it at Moon of Alabama, “Mook’s TV appearance was probably a test balloon raised to see if such claims would stick.” And stick they did.

The following day, The New York Times published a story that said, “the Russian-intervention narrative fits with Mrs. Clinton’s efforts to establish the idea that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wants to see Mr. Trump elected to weaken America and hurt its closest NATO allies.”

In an interview on July 26^th, 2016, President Obama alluded to the idea that Russia “hacked” the DNC to help Donald Trump. “What we do know is that the Russians hack our systems, not just government systems but private systems,” Obama said. “What the motives were in terms of the leaks, all that – I can’t say directly. What I do know is that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin.”

The allegation that Russia hacked the DNC first came from the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in June 2016. In its investigation, the FBI relied on CrowdStrike’s work and never had access to DNC servers. This year, a bombshell was revealed by declassified testimony from CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry before the House Intelligence Committee in 2017.

Henry admitted his firm had no “concrete evidence” that alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC servers. “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left,” Henry said.

As far as attributing the “hack” to Russia, Henry said, “There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.”

While Brennan and other former officials express their disdain at Trump’s DNI for selectively declassifying this latest information, it is important to understand that the claim underpinning the entire Russiagate narrative still has many holes. And the conspiracy would have never been born without selective leaks of information by Obama-era intelligence officials.

Li-Meng Yan, A Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who worked in a WHO reference lab and fled her position at the University of Hong Kong, has published a second co-authored report, alleging that SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was not only created in a Wuhan lab, it’s an “unrestricted bioweapon” which was intentionally released.

“We used biological evidence and in-depth analyses to show that SARS-CoV-2 must be a laboratory product, which was created by using a template virus (ZC45/ZXC21) owned by military research laboratories under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government,” reads the paper.

SARS-CoV2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV 2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.

The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health. As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both tot he reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.

The report also claims that the RaTG13 virus which Wuhan “Batwoman” Dr. Zhengli Shi and colleagues say they obtained in bat feces in 2013 (and which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2), is fraudulent and also man made.

Since its publication, the RaTG13 virus has served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 must have a natural origin. However, no live virus or an intact genome of RaTG13 have ever been isolated or recovered. Therefore, the only proof for the “existence” of RaTG13 in nature is its genomic sequence published on GenBank.

The report goes on to say that the RaTG13 genome could easily be fabricated, and that “an entry on GenBank, which in this case is equivalent to the existence of an assembled viral genomic sequence and its associated sequencing reads, is not a definitive proof that this viral genome is correct or real,” and that the process for sequencing DNA itself “leaves room for potential fraud.”

If one intends to fabricate an RNA viral genome on GenBank, he or she could do so by following these steps: create its genomic sequence on a computer, have segments of the genome synthesized based on the sequence, amplify each DNA segment through PCR, and then send the PCR products (may also be mixed with genetic material derived from the alleged host of the virus to mimic an authentic sequencing sample) for sequencing.The resulted raw sequencing reads would be used, together with the created genomic sequence, for establishing an entry on GenBank. Once accomplished, this entry would be accepted as the evidence for the natural existence of the corresponding virus. Clearly, a viral genomic sequence and its GenBank entry can be fabricated if well-planned.

RaTG13 has ‘multiple abnormal features,’ according to the report. For starters, it’s claimed that it was a fecal sample – yet just 1.7% of the raw sequencing reads are bacterial, when fecal swab samples are typically 70-90% bacterial. Second, the genomic sequence for RaTG13 contains segments of non-bat origin, including fox, flying fox, squirrels and other animals.

What’s more, China destroyed all evidence of RaTG13. “No independent verification of the RaTG13 sequence seems possible because, according to Dr. Zhengli Shi,the raw sample has been exhausted and no live virus was ever isolated or recovered. Notably, this information was known to a core circle of virologists early on and apparently accepted by them.”

Meanwhile, another coronavirus which shares a ‘100% nucleotide sequence identity with RaTG13’ – RaBtCoV/4991 – on a ‘short, 440-bp RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene segment.’

RaBtCoV/4991 was allegedly discovered by Shi and colleagues in 2012 and published in 2016, and colleagues have been asking if it’s the same virus as RaTG13.

Given the  100%  identity  on  this  short  gene  segment between  RaBtCoV/4991  and  RaTG13,the  field  has demanded clarification of whether or not these two names refer to the same virus. However,Dr. Shi did not respond to the requestor address this question for months. The answer finally came from Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and long-term collaborator of Shi, who claimed that RaBtCoV/4991 was RaTG1327.

Three suspicious facts

First, it makes no sense that ‘Batwoman’ Shi and her team wouldn’t have conducted whole genome sequencing of RaBtCoV/4991 before 2020, as it was suspected in the deaths of miners who suffered from severe pneumonia after clearing out bat droppings in a Chinese mineshaft.

Given the Shi group’s consistent interests in studying SARS-like bat coronaviruses and the fact that RaBtCoV/4991 is a SARS-like coronavirus with a possible connection to the deaths of the miners, it is highly unlikely that the Shi group would be content with sequencing only a 440-bp segment of RdRpand not pursue the sequencing of the receptor-binding motif (RBM)-encoding region of the spike gene. In fact, sequencing of the spike gene is routinely attempted by the Shi group once the presence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus is confirmed by the sequencing of the 440-bp RdRpsegment25,32, although the success of such efforts is often hindered by the poor quality of the sample.

“Clearly, the perceivable motivation of the Shi group to study this RaBtCoV/4991 virus and the fact that no genome sequencing of it was done for a period of seven years (2013-2020) are hard to reconcile and explain.“

Meanwhile, genomic sequencing of RaTG13 was conducted in 2018.

Second, why did Shi delay publication on RaTG13 until 2020 when it’s got a Spike protein that can bind with human ACE2 receptors?

…if the genomic sequence of RaTG13 had been available since 2018, it is unlikely that this virus, which has a possible connection to miners’ deaths in 2012 and has an alarming SARS-like RBM, would be shelfed for two years without publication. Consistent with this analysis, a recent study indeed proved that the RBD of RaTG13(produced via gene synthesis based on its published sequence) was capable of binding hACE2

Third, there has been no follow-up work on RaTG13 by Shi’s group.

Upon obtaining the genomic sequence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus, the Shi group routinely investigate whether or not the virus is capable of infecting human cells. This pattern of research activities has been shown repeatedly. However, such a pattern is not seen here despite that RaTG13 has an interesting RBM and is allegedly the closest match evolutionarily to SARS-CoV-2

Direct genetic evidence proving RaTG13 is fraudulent

Yan’s group closely examined the sequences of specific spike proteins for relevant viruses – specifically comparing mutations, and found that the spike genes of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 do not contain evidence of natural evolution when compared to other coronaviruses which naturally evolved.

A logical interpretation of this observation is that SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 could not relate to each other through natural evolution and at least one must be artificial.If one is a product of natural evolution, then the other one must be not. It is also possible that neither of them exists naturally. If RaTG13 is a real virus that truly exists in nature, then SARS-CoV-2 must be artificial.

More:

It is highly likely that the sequence of the RaTG13 genome was fabricated by lightly modifying the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to achieve an overall 96.2% sequence identity. During this process, much editing must have been done for the RBM region of the S1/spike because the encoded RBM determines the interaction with ACE2 and therefore would be heavily scrutinized by others.

The paper concludes: All fabricated coronaviruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45 and ZXC21

Evidence herein clearly indicates that the novel coronaviruses recently published by the CCP-controlled laboratories are all fraudulent and do not exist in nature. One final proof of this conclusion is the fact that all of these viruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21, which, as revealed in our earlier  report1, should be the template/backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2. Despite its conserved function in the viral replication cycle, the E protein is tolerant and permissive of amino acid mutations. It is therefore impossible for the amino acid sequence of the E protein to remain unchanged when the virus has allegedly crossed species barrier multiple times (between different bat species, from bats to pangolins, and from pangolins to humans). The 100% identity observed here, therefore, further proves that the sequences of these recently published novel coronaviruses have been fabricated.

Unrestricted bioweapon?

Yan notes that while it’s not easy for the public to accept that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon due to its relatively low lethality, it indeed meets the criteria of a bioweapon.

In 2005, Dr. Yang specified the criteria for a pathogen to qualify as a bioweapon:

1. It is significantly virulent and can cause large scale casualty.
2. It is highly contagious and transmits easily, often through respiratory routes in the form of aerosols. The most dangerous scenario would be that it allows human-to-human transmission.
3. It is relatively resistant to environmental changes, can sustain transportation, and is capable of supporting targeted release.

All of the above have been met bySARS-CoV-2: it has taken hundreds of thousands lives, led to numerous hospitalizations, and left many with sequela and various complications; it spreads easily by contact, droplets, and aerosols via respiratory routes and is capable of transmitting from human to human, the latter of which was initially covered up by the CCP government and the WHO and was first revealed by Dr. Li-Meng Yan on January 19th, 2020 on Lude Press; it is temperature-insensitive (unlike seasonal flu) and remains viable for a long period of time on many surfaces and at 4°C (e.g. the ice/water mixture).

What’s more, COVID-19 spreads asymptomatically, which “renders the control of SARS-CoV-2 extremely challenging.”

“In addition, the transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 also resulted in panic in the global community, disruption of social orders, and decimation of the world’s economy. The range and destructive power of SARS-CoV-2 are both unprecedented.“

“Clearly,SARS-CoV-2 not only meets but also surpasses the standards of a traditional bioweapon. Therefore, it should be defined as an Unrestricted Bioweapon.”

Hurricane Delta is quickly traversing the Gulf of Mexico after making landfall over the Yucatan Peninsula on Wednesday. The Category 2 storm recharged in the overnight hours, with the National Hurricane Center warning of further intensification ahead of landfall on Friday along the Louisiana coast. 

According to the NHC’s latest tropical update, Delta has maximum sustained winds of about 100 mph and moves northwest at 15 mph. The storm is about 425 miles from Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The storm could strengthen to a major hurricane –­­ Category 3 – ahead of landfall. 

As of 0900 ET Thursday, Delta’s track remains unchanged, with the storm’s path likely to cross near Lake Charles. Lake Charles is the area where Category 4 Hurricane Laura ripped apart houses and buildings in late August. 

Governor John Bel Edwards points out some existing damage by Laura has yet to be permanently removed. 

“All that debris could become missiles in really strong wind,” said Edwards, who also said many residents could experience “anxiety” about another storm hitting the area. 

“We don’t want a hurricane to hit anywhere, but we know that the area that is least prepared and ready for a storm happens to be southwest Louisiana,” he said.

Edwards said President Donald Trump approved his request for federal emergency funds and resources to assist the area. The storm’s potential impact, as described by NHC, could result in a “life-threatening storm surge” along portions of the Northern Gulf Coast on Friday. 

Storm Surge

Peak Surge

Wind Speed Probabilities

Storm Track

Rainfall Total

Flash Flooding 

With Delta expected to intensify into a Category 3 storm, the oil and gas industry wasted no time this week, shutting down offshore rigs and pulling workers. 

“Regarding the Gulf developments, NHC stated that Hurricane Delta has restrengthened into a Category 2 hurricane with hurricane conditions and life-threatening surges expected to begin along portions of the Northern Gulf coast on Friday, whilst BSEE’s estimations yesterday suggest that Hurricane Delta has shut-in 80% offshore crude oil production (prev. 29%) and 49% of natural gas output (prev. 9%) in the Gulf of Mexico – with Shell and Chevron the latest companies to all halt operations in the vicinity,” Ransquawk noted. 

Delta Approaching Offshore Oil And Gas Assets

There are nearly eight weeks of hurricane season left, Delta making landfall Friday could break the 1916 record of nine hurricanes making landfall on mainland US in a given season. As readers may recall, a super active season is primarily due to La Nina conditions.